Common Sense For Belmar Liberty Begins At Home

July 30, 2011

L.A. Dumps Red Light Cameras

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 4:40 am

And Florida is working on it.

“Cheers and embraces among Cuban-American lawmakers from both parties, for who the cameras invoked big-brother memories from their communist homeland.”

July 29, 2011

Save The Barclay

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 5:45 am

I regret that I couldn’t get to the meeting about the Barclay in time last week to put my 2 cents in on the subject.  Not that it would have made any difference, but if I was able to speak I would have supported the Vitas’ request to allow an expansion of their license. 

As always, my feeling is that people have the right to live their lives, and to use their property, in a way that affords them maximum happiness.  If the government wishes to restrict peoples’ actions, I believe a compelling case must be made that this will interfere with somebody’s right to pursue their own happiness and enjoy their own property.  I know this position commonly puts me at odds with public opinion, and in this case with some of my friends, but I have to be honest.

I just don’t see it as highly likely that serving meals and drinks on the third floor of the Barclay will do any great harm to the surrounding neighborhood.  The Vitas have stated that they respect the residents’ wishes to keep the area quiet and clean.  They have said they will not operate the business in a way that would harm the neighborhood.  They seem like perfectly decent people to me and I believe them.  If any problems did arise, I’m sure the Vitas would do what they could to remedy them.

I know how difficult it would have been to vote in favor of the Vitas’ application after all the embarrassment that the Barclay’s donation (s?) caused the governing Democrats.  There certainly would have been (perhaps justified) grumbling  of a possible quid-pro-quo.  But I see no evidence of that or that the Vitas broke any campaign laws.  The donation imbroglio following last year’s election was not their fault.  It should not interfere with their right to earn a living. 

It’s fairly obvious that with it’s current restrictions the Barclay can not be profitable.  If public pressure prevents the Vitas from fully utilizing their property, the Barclay will most likely go away.  Are we all ready to see that grand old historic building disappear, and all those people thrown out of work, when that outcome could have been prevented?  The place will sit vacant and decaying for years while the bankruptcy winds it’s way through the courts.  And what will replace it?  Can it’s neighbors be sure they will be able to control what goes there?  Will they be able to prevent the state from forcing us to build high density “affordable housing ” there?

 I hope the Vitas’ appeal is successful.  Call me sentimental, but I’ll miss seeing all the wedding parties posing at the gazebo.  And with nobody having their weddings in Belmar, Matt won’t have as many opportunities to perform marriages, something I know he’s been wanting to do.

 

July 23, 2011

Coast Star Coverage

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 11:57 am

Some good press from the Star:

 Schneck proposes resolution for division of income tax dollars

By Molly Mulshine

Belmar resident David Schneck approached the dais at the July 6 council meeting to suggest a resolution to members of the governing body regarding the division of tax dollars for educational funding.

The proposed resolution, which Mr. Schneck obtained from Sen. Mike Doherty’s [R-23] website, fairschoolfunding.com, calls upon the state legislature to “fulfill its constitutionally assigned duty to distribute the state aid for education to the school districts in this state in a fair manner that is for the equal benefit of all the people of the state and not by means that are prejudiced by the actions of special interests.”

“Our state income tax is supposed to be for property tax relief,” Mr. Schneck said. “The residents of Belmar pay over $4.5 million a year in state income tax and we get back about half a million dollars out of that in property tax relief.”

The rest of this money is given to urban towns, Mr. Schneck said.

“Basically, the suburban towns are being used to subsidize the political machines of the urban towns, so we’re paying for education twice,” Mr. Schneck said. “First we’re paying income tax and we’re not getting any of that back, then we have to pay again in property tax in order to run [Belmar’s] schools.”

Mr. Schneck called this division of resources “a real injustice … All I’m asking for is a fair school funding formula. This is not a Democratic or Republican resolution. This is not in support of any law. All this is saying is that we think we should get our fair share of state educational dollars to come right back here to Belmar.

 “I don’t see how anyone could object to it,” Mr. Schneck added.

Mr. Schneck, who ran for council as an Independent last year and is currently the Libertarian candidate for the state Assembly, 11th district, has brought this resolution to the council’s attention three times since June 1.

The resolution has been passed by five towns, two counties and a board of education in New Jersey, he said.

Mayor Matt Doherty suggested Mr. Schneck take the resolution to the Belmar Board of Education.

“I’d like to see what the board of education has to say about this,” Mayor Doherty said. “If they thought it was a great idea, I’d be more inclined to do it.”

The board of education is “already getting what they need to run the school,” Mr. Schneck said. “This is for property tax relief.

“Regardless of what we do with it, certainly the money is better off here in Belmar than in Hoboken and Camden,” Mr. Schneck said. “If there was an equitable distribution of the state income tax relief going out to all the people of New Jersey, Belmar would be getting back $3.1 million more than we get now.”

The council was slated to vote on this resolution at last night’s meeting, held at borough hall at 8 p.m.

July 21, 2011

Closter Too!

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 8:10 am

Closter Supports Fair School Funding

.

It’s Official!

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 5:28 am

Last night the council passed the Fair School Funding resolution by unanimous consent.  I’d like to thank Mayor Doherty and every member of the council, especially Claire Deicke, who was instrumental in getting it passed. 

Of course if the plan becomes law, there will be a lot to discuss about how the $3 million should be used, but I think all of us will be happy to be in the position of needing to have that discussion. 

Next step:  Tonight I will be discussing the plan and the resolution at a meeting of the Jersey Shore Tea Party Patriots.

And starting next week I plan to visit the council meetings of some neighboring towns, many of which are suffering even worse treatment from Trenton than we are, and encourage them to follow in Belmar’s footsteps and demand a change in school funding policy.

July 19, 2011

Thank You!

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 5:44 am

To whoever agreed to put the Fair School Funding resolution on tomorrow night’s agenda, thank you. 

 As you know, Trenton’s abusive policies towards towns like Belmar is the core issue driving my political involvement.  It’s very gratifying to have actually been able to get something done about it.

RESOLUTION 2011-

RESOLUTION FOR FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF

STATE AID FOR EDUCATION

WHEREAS, the Borough of Belmar, County of Monmouth believes that every child

should have equal resources of state aid distributed by the legislature for an education in the State

of New Jersey by utilizing a fair school funding mechanism; and

WHEREAS, the current distribution of state aid for education to the schools has not been

distributed in a fair and equitable manner to provide property tax relief to all the citizens of the

State of New Jersey; and

WHEREAS, Article III., Paragraph 1, of the New Jersey State Constitution states, “The

powers of government shall be divided among three distinct branches, the legislative, executive,

and judicial. No person or persons belonging to or constituting one branch shall exercise any of

the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except as expressly provided in this

Constitution;” and

WHEREAS,Article VIII, Section IV, Paragraph 1, of the New Jersey State Constitution

states, “the Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient

system of free public schools for the instruction of all children in the State between the ages of

five and eighteen year;” and

WHEREAS, Article VIII, Section IV, Paragraph 2, of the New Jersey State Constitution

states, “the fund for the support of free public schools . . . shall be annually appropriated to the

support of free public schools, and for the equal benefit of all the people of this State;” and

WHEREAS, Article VIII, Section I, Paragraph 7.a. of the New Jersey State Constitution

states, the income tax is to be “annually appropriated . . . exclusively for the purpose of reducing

or offsetting property taxes;” and

WHEREAS, this body can no longer bear the burden of the continued diversion of its

fair share of state school aid for the students between the ages of five and eighteen years of age

who reside within this jurisdiction.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor and Council of the Borough

of Belmar, County of Monmouth do hereby call upon the Legislature of the State of New Jersey

to fulfill its constitutionally assigned duty to distribute the state aid for education to the school

districts in this state in a fair manner that is for the equal benefit of all the people of the state and

not by means that are prejudiced by the actions of special interests that may have been presented

before the Court or other venue.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk of this entity is hereby directed to

forward a copy of this resolution to Governor Chris Christie, Senate President Stephen Sweeney,

Senate Minority Leader Thomas Kean Jr., Assemblyman David Rible, Assemblywoman Mary Pat

Angelini, and Senator Sean Kean.

Council member offered the above resolution and moved its adoption. Seconded by Council

member and adopted by the following vote on roll call:

Council members: AYES NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT

Mrs. Deicke

Mr. Magovern

Mr. Wright

Mrs. Nicolay

Mayor Doherty

Adopted:

Hopefully the resolution will pass and we can add Belmar’s voice to the growing list of towns demanding an end to the fleecing of New Jersey’s suburban taxpayers.

 

July 18, 2011

The Red Light Camera Tax

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 1:38 pm

In a letter to the Asbury Park Press, Belmar resident Michael Rothenberg makes a common mistake, one made very often by politicians.

He states “Anything that can create more revenue for this bankrupt state and individual towns without raising taxes is fine by me.”  What he seems not to understand is that when money is taken from it’s rightful owner in the private economy and instead spent by the government it reduces that economy.  Some of the money collected by red-light tickets, if not sent to the government,  might otherwise have been spent at your company, or even Mr. Rothenberg’s.  Unless it was going to be buried in a shoebox in it’s owner’s back yard, it was going to be either spent or saved, either of which would grow the economy.  It doesn’t matter to the macro economy whether it was a tax or a fine, it’s deleterious effect is the same.

Now taxes and fines both drive behaviour, sometimes intentionally, such as with fines and with certain taxes, and sometimes unintentionally, such as the income tax (which discourages wealth creation.)  And if fines reduce certain antisocial behaviour then they may be justified.  But in general, when money is taken by force out of the voluntary economy to be spent politically instead, it reduces everyone’s standard of living.

The problem in New Jersey isn’t that government isn’t collecting enough revenue.  Whatever means they might employ, if the government collected enough to pay for all it’s ever-increasing obligations, there would be no economy.  New Jersey would look like East Germany.  Government comes at the expense of the economy.  The bigger the government, the smaller the economy.

Of course I am not in favor of running red lights.  But I am against the use of red-light cameras, and not just for economic reasons.

Aside from the creepy big-brother 1984ish aspect of always being watched, my main objection to red-light camera tickets is that they are unfairly difficult to defend one’s self against.

To begin with, the state doesn’t even have to know who is being charged.  This is why they can’t issue points against the driver.  They should have to know who they are charging and not just punish the owner of the car.  You can’t just press homicide charges against the owner of a gun used in a murder.  You need to prove that he pulled the trigger.

Another factor that makes it almost impossible to defend yourself against one of these tickets is that you don’t get the summons for several weeks after the supposed infraction.  When you get a ticket from a cop, you know what just happened.  You have the opportunity to explain to the cop any mitigating circumstances, and even if unsuccessful, at least you know that what you just did will have to be defended in court, so you will be sure to remember.

When you get a ticket in the mail, charging you with something from a month ago, you most likely won’t remember what the circumstances were, especially if it is an intersection you pass through regularly.  How can you defend yourself against something you don’t even remember doing?  This is fundamentally unfair prosecution and should not be permitted in a free country.

And despite the claims of public support for red-light cameras, every city and town where referendums banning red-light cameras were put to the voters, those bans passed easily.  The people don’t want this and the state should just drop the whole idea.

 

July 15, 2011

Rible’s Conflicting Oaths

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 8:06 am

“……and I do further promise – and declare I will not – by word, deed, sign or token – injure a fellow member of this Association”

As the Asbury Park Press reports, this (somewhat creepy) PBA loyalty oath was taken David Rible when he became a cop.  He now stands accused by the PBA of violating that oath by voting in favor of trimming (slightly, and apparently only temporarily) state worker benefits, including those of police.  Of course he says that his oath to his constituents is more important, but will he disavow his PBA oath?  Will he resign from the union, as he should?  Isn’t there a serious conflict of interest in voting on state law regarding a union to which he’s taken a (somewhat creepy) loyalty oath? 

In a letter published in the Coast Star, Rible states: 

“One of the most important responsibilities of the Legislature is to safeguard taxpayer dollars. It is our job to make sure that all financial decisions, including our state’s budget, serve the best interest of the taxpayers and does not misuse their hard-earned dollars.”

and: 

“It is important to note that our state is experiencing a financial crisis and so tough decisions must be made in order to repair our economy. Therefore, the efficient use of taxpayer money should be the number one priority when making these significant decisions.”

Mr. Rible’s claim of fealty to the taxpayers seems a little inauthentic considering he’s been collecting $54,000 a year since 1998 in disability payments from those same taxpayers and apparently intends to continue collecting this money for the rest of his life.  I guess his disability payments are not part of any spending cuts he might envision.

                                The “totally and permanently disabled”  David Rible competes in a 5K run. 

**BTW, does declaring “I will not – by word, deed, sign or token – injure a fellow member of this Association” mean that you can’t report on or testify about misconduct by fellow officers?  Just wondering.

 

Ron Paul’s First TV Ad for 2012

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 4:30 am

July 12, 2011

Union City Swimming In Your Money

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 5:16 am

Paul Mulshine brings to our attention the beautiful Ronald Dario Swimming Complex paid for with your money, but open only to residents of Union City (who contributed basically nothing).  Do you go to work every day so the people of Union City can have this?

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress